Gender quotas and other other positive discriminations

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Thread severed from the alt-right thread because opposition to gender quotas is not exclusive to the alt right nor is it, as far as I can see, their main battleground.

oscarBravo

the_syco wrote: »

But who cares. Lets put a quota in place so that X amount of women will be in the dail. Not entirely sure how this will happen if no-one votes for them?

That's not how quotas work. They don't require that X percentage of women be elected; they require that X percentage of candidates for election be women.

Women are broadly speaking as likely to be elected as men, once they get to the point of being on the ballot - which gives the lie to the idea that women are underrepresented in politics because people don't want to vote for them.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because they don't want to. Men are "underrepresented" in things like social care, should we then ask why men don't want to do it and call for 50% of the workforce being male?

The point you're carefully missing is that elected representatives define social policy in a way that care workers don't. It's the same reason that the percentage of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies is discussed more than the percentage of female janitors: janitors don't influence corporate policy.

Of course it is, you're arguing for identity politics - that since the electorate is half female, logically the Dáil should be half-female. How do you think that's going to come about, exactly? By men voting for women and women voting for men?

It's going to come about by having candidates who are broadly representative of the electorate.

If the Dáil should reflect the electorate, that means that I should vote for white Irish men since they're the ones who "reflect" me.

You're still refusing to see my point.

Firstly, are you arguing that the Dáil shouldn't broadly represent the electorate? Do you think that the country would be better served by having no elected representatives under the age of 60? Would we have a better government if every TD was a millionaire CEO?

So, no: you "shouldn't" vote for white Irish men, but you certainly shouldn't have to put up with a system that makes it hard for white Irish men to get on the ballot. You should have the opportunity to vote for someone you feel best represents you, and if that means having the opportunity to vote for someone like you, you shouldn't be deprived of that opportunity.

But that is exactly what you are doing. You are espousing an identitarian philosophy. It is also completely anti-democratic, to impose what you believe to be "fair" at the expense of what people want to vote for.

People, generally speaking, want a choice when it comes to voting. If there are systemic barriers in place that mean that someone who wants to be represented by a female politician doesn't have that choice, then those systemic barriers need to be addressed.

Stop trying to play identity politics, and just let it be a god damn meritocracy like it should be.

I want it to be a meritocracy - and that means making sure that female candidates are in a position to allow the electorate to choose (or reject) them on their merits.

The problem is that it's not a meritocracy. Gender quotas are a way of addressing systemic barriers. If you have a better way, let's hear it.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the view that there are no systemic barriers, and that women just don't want to be politicians. In which case, I'd love to hear some evidence for that particular Edwardian view.

AnGaelach wrote: »

He's trying to score victim points.

What the hell is a victim point?

In Ireland women are as likely to get elected as men on the ballot. Yet they make up a smaller proportion of Independent candidates than within any of the parties. They apparently need hand-holding and "encouragement" from friendly parties to make a run for office.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

In Ireland women are as likely to get elected as men on the ballot. Yet they make up a smaller proportion of Independent candidates than within any of the parties. They apparently need hand-holding and "encouragement" from friendly parties to make a run for office.

You have beautifully illustrated systemic and attitudinal discrimination against women.

Zubeneschamali

osmiumartist wrote: »

Tell us then how you plan on making these blind people have the exact same opportunities as non-blind.

So you are saying that a woman in politics is like a blind man flying an aircraft?

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Women are broadly speaking as likely to be elected as men, once they get to the point of being on the ballot - which gives the lie to the idea that women are underrepresented in politics because people don't want to vote for them.

So then what is the issue exactly? You're sad that more women don't want to stand for election?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The point you're carefully missing is that elected representatives define social policy in a way that care workers don't. It's the same reason that the percentage of female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies is discussed more than the percentage of female janitors: janitors don't influence corporate policy. It's going to come about by having candidates who are broadly representative of the electorate. You're still refusing to see my point.

So, you don't care about actual equality, you just care about women being in more positions of power? Why on earth should I vote for that? Having "quotas" on board seats is just as ridiculous as it is having them on ballot papers - that's not meritocracy at all. The two richest people in Australia are women, should one of them be male? Not at all.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Firstly, are you arguing that the Dáil shouldn't broadly represent the electorate? Do you think that the country would be better served by having no elected representatives under the age of 60? Would we have a better government if every TD was a millionaire CEO?

What I'm arguing is that if everyone wants to vote for millionaires over 60, then they are perfectly entitled to do so.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, no: you "shouldn't" vote for white Irish men, but you certainly shouldn't have to put up with a system that makes it hard for white Irish men to get on the ballot. You should have the opportunity to vote for someone you feel best represents you, and if that means having the opportunity to vote for someone like you, you shouldn't be deprived of that opportunity. People, generally speaking, want a choice when it comes to voting. If there are systemic barriers in place that mean that someone who wants to be represented by a female politician doesn't have that choice, then those systemic barriers need to be addressed. I want it to be a meritocracy - and that means making sure that female candidates are in a position to allow the electorate to choose (or reject) them on their merits.

Source for the highlighted? Or are you just trying to argue under the assumption that there are in fact barriers in place, but have no evidence for the claim?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem is that it's not a meritocracy. Gender quotas are a way of addressing systemic barriers. If you have a better way, let's hear it.

Unless, of course, you subscribe to the view that there are no systemic barriers, and that women just don't want to be politicians. In which case, I'd love to hear some evidence for that particular Edwardian view.

There aren't barriers in place. It's whether the women want to run for that position or not in the first place.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/women-in-politics_n_5607061.html

Jennifer Lawless, a Brookings senior fellow who also directs the Women and Politics Institute at American University, analyzed data from a 2011 study that surveyed a national random sample of “equally credentialed” women and men working in law, business, education and politics — four fields from which political candidates commonly emerge. According to Lawless’ paper, there were “no remarkable socio-demographic or professional differences” between the men and the women.

[...]

“Women are very likely to believe that when they run for office, they don’t do as well as men. There’s no empirical evidence to support that,” said Lawless. “When women run, they actually perform just as well on Election Day, they’re able to raise just as much money, and generally speaking, their media coverage looks very much the same. But what we found was that women who are well-situated to run for office don’t know that and don’t think that. So they believe they’re not qualified because they think women have to be twice as good to get half as far.”

So, what now, you're going to complain about how we have to make people feel more comfortable and "examine why they feel that way"?

It's absolute Nanny State nonsense. That's not meritocracy, that's molly-coddling.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You have beautifully illustrated systemic and attitudinal discrimination against women.

Refer to my above post - that mollycoddling is exactly what you are arguing for since women lacking confidence is a "systemic" barrier that needs to be redressed.

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

So then what is the issue exactly?

The issue is that they're not getting on the ballot. If you weren't so busy bolding things and ignoring the bits you haven't bolded, it's pretty obvious what the issue is.

You're sad that more women don't want to stand for election?

Who says that more women don't want to stand for election?

So, you don't care about actual equality, you just care about women being in more positions of power?

Do you genuinely not understand why it's more important for equality to have women in positions of power than in menial jobs?

Because if you genuinely don't understand that, I suppose I could explain it to you, but if you're just wilfully pretending not to understand something so self-evident, there's not much point.

Why on earth should I vote for that?

Who asked you to vote for it?

The two richest people in Australia are women, should one of them be male? Not at all.

If you can find an example of anyone, anywhere, ever, suggesting that there should be gender balance between the two richest people in Australia, I'd love to see a link to it.

What I'm arguing is that if everyone wants to vote for millionaires over 60, then they are perfectly entitled to do so.

And what I'm arguing is that if the electoral system is set up such that only millionaires over 60 can get on the balance, then it doesn't matter who people want to vote for.

But again: it's obvious that that's what my point is, which leaves me wondering why you're so carefully avoiding it.

Source for the highlighted? Or are you just trying to argue under the assumption that there are in fact barriers in place, but have no evidence for the claim?

[...]

There aren't barriers in place. It's whether the women want to run for that position or not in the first place.

Why are you asking me a question, then telling me the answer in the next sentence? It couldn't be that you have your mind made up, could it?

So, what now, you're going to complain about how we have to make people feel more comfortable and "examine why they feel that way"?

What's so terrible about making people feel comfortable?

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Refer to my above post - that mollycoddling is exactly what you are arguing for since women lacking confidence is a "systemic" barrier that needs to be redressed.

Can you quote me where I argued that women should be 'mollycoddled'?
Also, where I said that women's confidence is a systemic barrier?

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

The issue is that they're not getting on the ballot. If you weren't so busy bolding things and ignoring the bits you haven't bolded, it's pretty obvious what the issue is.

It's not at all obvious. Women not being on the ballot in the same numbers, is because women don't seek to go into politics in the same numbers.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who says that more women don't want to stand for election? Do you genuinely not understand why it's more important for equality to have women in positions of power than in menial jobs?

Then those women should display the skills required to get on the ballot, like men do. Do you think any ole Tom, Dick or Harry can walk up to Fianna Fail and say "yep I'd like to be on the ballot"?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who asked you to vote for it?

Allow me to rephrase it then - why on earth should I support it?

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you can find an example of anyone, anywhere, ever, suggesting that there should be gender balance between the two richest people in Australia, I'd love to see a link to it. And what I'm arguing is that if the electoral system is set up such that only millionaires over 60 can get on the balance, then it doesn't matter who people want to vote for.

I've asked you before, but I'll ask again - can you provide evidence for your claim of systemic barriers being in place?

oscarBravo wrote: »

But again: it's obvious that that's what my point is, which leaves me wondering why you're so carefully avoiding it.

You don't have a point. You've said you've argued for meritocracy, but then when there aren't actual barriers in place, you've shifted to "well shouldn't we make people feel good?". That's absolute nonsense.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why are you asking me a question, then telling me the answer in the next sentence? It couldn't be that you have your mind made up, could it?

You asked for proof of there not being barriers in place, and I provided it. I added my commentary to the end. You are aware that's how you use quotes and sources, right?

Now, if you could get on with finding evidence of barriers being in place, that'd be nice.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's so terrible about making people feel comfortable?

Because the world isn't comfortable, it's not a nice and cosy place where people will hold your hand and walk you through your first election and pat you on the back afterwards. It's nothing but emotional feel-good nonsense. You want to stand for election? Then stand on your own merits - don't rely on other people to do the heavy lifting for you.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Can you quote me where I argued that women should be 'mollycoddled'?

Is that not what this entire discussion is about? Instead of telling people to do their own work and make themselves the best candidate, we just slap them on the ballot anyway?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Also, where I said that women's confidence is a systemic barrier?

You claimed that making a pass remark about women was evidence of the systemic barriers. I gave a source saying there was no such evidence of these barriers, in practice or in law.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Is that not what this entire discussion is about? Instead of telling people to do their own work and make themselves the best candidate, we just slap them on the ballot anyway?



You claimed that making a pass remark about women was evidence of the systemic barriers. I gave a source saying there was no such evidence of these barriers, in practice or in law.

The title of the thread doesn't mention the word 'mollycoddle'. People who, for whatever reason, cannot compete should be assisted in achieving equality of opportunity.

I didn't claim that " a passing remark" was evidence of systemic barriers. I said the poster's comment about "apparent hand-holding" illustrates a systemic and attitudinal discrimination. I think the word 'mollycoddling' is similarly patronising, as it happens.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I didn't claim that " a passing remark" was evidence of systemic barriers. I said the poster's comment about "apparent hand-holding" illustrates a systemic and attitudinal discrimination. I think the word 'mollycoddling' is similarly patronising, as it happens.

That's the exact same thing as saying there's systemic barriers. You'll need to find evidence to support your claim.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote:

That's the exact same thing as saying there's systemic barriers. You'll need to find evidence to support your claim.

TDs are not entitled to maternity leave. That is a systemic barrier.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

TDs are not entitled to maternity leave. That is a systemic barrier.

They're also not entitled to paternity leave. That isn't an argument for gender quotas. You know your terms when you sign up to stand for election.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote:

They're also not entitled to paternity leave.

AnGaelach wrote:

They're also not entitled to paternity leave. That isn't an argument for gender quotas. You know your terms when you sign up to stand for election.

Maternity leave is 26 weeks for almost all workers. TDs are excluded. That is a systemic barrier which discriminates against women who want to be TDs.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Maternity leave is 26 weeks for almost all workers. TDs are excluded. That is a systemic barrier which discriminates against women who want to be TDs.

Yeah, and you know this before you sign up to become a TD.

Almost all workers are allowed to strike except the Gardaí/Army etc - is that a systemic barrier that discriminates against men going into those professions? Does TDs not being allowed to have paternity leave discriminate against men who want to become TDs?

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

Women not being on the ballot in the same numbers, is because women don't seek to go into politics in the same numbers.

As always, you wander right up to the brink of the point.

The question is: why don't women seek to go into politics in the same numbers?

Then those women should display the skills required to get on the ballot, like men do.

You're never terribly far from the "women don't seek to go into politics because they're not as good as men" trope, are you?

Do you think any ole Tom, Dick or Harry can walk up to Fianna Fail and say "yep I'd like to be on the ballot"?

No, I don't think that. If you can find any evidence of me thinking that, feel free.

Allow me to rephrase it then - why on earth should I support it?

You don't have to support it. Clearly, you're comfortable in your belief that the reason there are fewer women in positions of power than there are men is that women are less deserving of those positions.

What a strange belief for a man to have.

I've asked you before, but I'll ask again - can you provide evidence for your claim of systemic barriers being in place?

I find it strange to be badgered for evidence of something I thought was considered self-evident by anyone who had evolved from the view that a woman's place was barefoot and pregnant. It's a bit like being asked for evidence of anthropogenic global warming, frankly.

I could do some Googling for you, I suppose, but before I waste time on it, do you want to set out some criteria for evidence you won't dismiss out of hand just because you disagree with it?

You don't have a point.

You disagreeing with me doesn't mean I don't have a point. If anything, the fact that you keep arguing around my point suggests that you know I have one, but don't want to confront it.

You've said you've argued for meritocracy, but then when there aren't actual barriers in place, you've shifted to "well shouldn't we make people feel good?". That's absolute nonsense.

Part of it is: the part where you've unilaterally decided that there are no barriers.

You asked for proof of there not being barriers in place, and I provided it.

No, you didn't. You provided evidence that, once they actually get on the ballot, women tend to be as successful as men. Which means that you've carefully skirted, for the umpteenth time, the question of barriers to actually getting on the ballot.

Because the world isn't comfortable, it's not a nice and cosy place where people will hold your hand and walk you through your first election and pat you on the back afterwards.

The straw men are piling up.

You want to stand for election? Then stand on your own merits - don't rely on other people to do the heavy lifting for you.

In other words, if women were as good as men, they'd have no trouble getting elected.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, and you know this before you sign up to become a TD.

Almost all workers are allowed to strike except the Gardaí/Army etc - is that a systemic barrier that discriminates against men going into those professions? Does TDs not being allowed to have paternity leave discriminate against men who want to become TDs?

I don't understand your point about strikes unless you are forgetting that there are women in the Gardaí and the army. Paternity leave is two weeks so the discrimination is far greater in politics.

You asked for evidence of systemic barriers for women in politics. I told you that they are, almost uniquely, not entitled to maternity leave as TDs. That is as clear a systemic barrier as you can get. Perhaps you might now like to move the discussion along?

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, and you know this before you sign up to become a TD.

If you're wondering why I haven't done exhaustive research on your behalf on systemic barriers: this is why.

You ask for a systemic barrier, you're given one. You reply "that's not a barrier". Female TDs aren't entitled to the 26 weeks' maternity leave most female workers are; you counter that that's exactly the same thing as male TDs not being entitled to the two weeks' paternity leave that most male workers are.

You're convinced that women are inherently less capable of getting elected than men. I can't imagine anything changing that belief.

Zubeneschamali

oscarBravo wrote: »

The question is: why don't women seek to go into politics in the same numbers?

And the follow up: How can we fix this?

A quota system is a rather blunt instrument, but we know the parties can rustle up female candidates when they are obliged to.

blackwhite

oscarBravo wrote: »

As always, you wander right up to the brink of the point.

The question is: why don't women seek to go into politics in the same numbers?

Here's a mad thought that always seems to bypass those who advocate quotas.....

Maybe try addressing the reasons why - that way we can be sure that we are missing out on the very best possible candidates - instead of pushing for quotas as a blunt instrument, which don't actually address the root of the issue.

Without quotas, parties will generally select who they think has the best chance of winning.
With quotas (of any type), parties end up selecting candidates who they think have less chance of winning, because they have to hit a quota.

Work on actually addressing the root of the problem, and then entering politics becomes much more attractive to women, which should naturally lead to stronger candidates being available (the bigger the pool to select from, etc,etc).

oscarBravo

blackwhite wrote: »

Here's a mad thought that always seems to bypass those who advocate quotas.....

Maybe try addressing the reasons why - that way we can be sure that we are missing out on the very best possible candidates - instead of pushing for quotas as a blunt instrument, which don't actually address the root of the issue.

Without quotas, parties will generally select who they think has the best chance of winning.
With quotas (of any type), parties end up selecting candidates who they think have less chance of winning, because they have to hit a quota.

Work on actually addressing the root of the problem, and then entering politics becomes much more attractive to women, which should naturally lead to stronger candidates being available (the bigger the pool to select from, etc,etc).

Believe it or not, what you've described is precisely the point of quotas.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that there are systemic barriers to entry for women in politics; let's further take it as given that once women get on the ballot, they're equally likely to get elected as men. The logical conclusion is that the systemic barriers are to getting on the ballot.

There are two approaches you can take: you can say to political parties, "please try to figure out what the systemic barriers to women are, and address them, pretty please, ktnxbai" or you can tell them "x% of candidates have to be women - if there are systemic barriers to achieving that, you're just going to have to address them".

The former approach is the one favoured by people who are vehemently opposed to gender quotas; those people for whom the idea of fairness is more important than its attainment. The problem is, it doesn't work, because it's easier to find good candidates who don't have systemic barriers to overcome.

When you point out that a quota makes it harder to find the best person for the job: yes, that's the unfortunate short-term consequence. The idea of that short-term consequence is that it forces the political parties to work harder at making it possible for better candidates to make themselves available.

When people (apart from the ones who think that women don't have what it takes to be politicians) say that they're opposed to gender quotas, what they're saying is that the existence of systemic barriers to entry is a price they're prepared to pay for the principle of equality - which doesn't make sense to me.

If you're opposed to gender quotas, but in favour of equal opportunities for women, then you really ought to be proposing an alternative to gender quotas which will achieve the same outcome of removing systemic barriers to entry.

Keyzer

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Maternity leave is 26 weeks for almost all workers. TDs are excluded. That is a systemic barrier which discriminates against women who want to be TDs.

No, that's equality right there. Male TD's don't get paternity leave, Female's don't get maternity. I think that's quite fair no?

Professor Moriarty

Keyzer wrote: »

No, that's equality right there. Male TD's don't get paternity leave, Female's don't get maternity. I think that's quite fair no?

No. In almost every other walk of life, women get maternity leave. The fact that they can't get maternity leave as TDs mitigates against a woman choosing to become a TD. The logistics of a public representative taking mat leave are obviously very difficult but the fact remains.

K-9

Keyzer wrote: »

No, that's equality right there. Male TD's don't get paternity leave, Female's don't get maternity. I think that's quite fair no?

Well saying something is equally unfair isn't a great way of getting to fairness. Woman physically give birth and need time off as an absolute necessity. Saying it's Equally tough on both exactly shows the lack of recognition of why it is generally tougher for women to get into politics.

I suppose we could continue with your reasoning and say tough, you knew what you got into, don't have children.

The problem with saying "let's fix the problems first" is the problems women face are wider societal ones. Women generally are the main carer for children and do most house keeping stuff, which means going into politics requires a big change in their everyday life, late nights, away during the week etc.

Now things are obviously better than 30 years ago on that front, men share the household and parenting burden, but it's a slow process.

blackwhite

oscarBravo wrote: »

Believe it or not, what you've described is precisely the point of quotas.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that there are systemic barriers to entry for women in politics; let's further take it as given that once women get on the ballot, they're equally likely to get elected as men. The logical conclusion is that the systemic barriers are to getting on the ballot.

There are two approaches you can take: you can say to political parties, "please try to figure out what the systemic barriers to women are, and address them, pretty please, ktnxbai" or you can tell them "x% of candidates have to be women - if there are systemic barriers to achieving that, you're just going to have to address them".

The former approach is the one favoured by people who are vehemently opposed to gender quotas; those people for whom the idea of fairness is more important than its attainment. The problem is, it doesn't work, because it's easier to find good candidates who don't have systemic barriers to overcome.

When you point out that a quota makes it harder to find the best person for the job: yes, that's the unfortunate short-term consequence. The idea of that short-term consequence is that it forces the political parties to work harder at making it possible for better candidates to make themselves available.

When people (apart from the ones who think that women don't have what it takes to be politicians) say that they're opposed to gender quotas, what they're saying is that the existence of systemic barriers to entry is a price they're prepared to pay for the principle of equality - which doesn't make sense to me.

If you're opposed to gender quotas, but in favour of equal opportunities for women, then you really ought to be proposing an alternative to gender quotas which will achieve the same outcome of removing systemic barriers to entry.

It's been proposed in the thread already - maternity leave needs to be addressed. Why you seem to believe that quotas are needed before that can be addressed is a strange one though.

As for the other barriers - has there been any studies done into it? Very hard to address a problem if the cause hasn't been established (other of course than "men are keeping women down - somehow....").

I look at the issue of female numbers in politics as very similar to the issue of male teacher numbers. The solution is in first understanding why the respective careers don't appeal to the respective genders, and then addressing those reasons.
Both are jobs that are too important to push inferior candidates purely to hit a notional target percentage.

marienbad

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're opposed to gender quotas, but in favour of equal opportunities for women, then you really ought to be proposing an alternative to gender quotas which will achieve the same outcome of removing systemic barriers to entry.

Here we have it in a nutshell .

Any takers anyone ?? Any proposal at all to eliminate the need for quotas ?

Anything ?

FreudianSlippers

Keyzer wrote: »

No, that's equality right there. Male TD's don't get paternity leave, Female's don't get maternity. I think that's quite fair no?

Scandinavian research and experience has shown that granting paternity leave actually does assist in increasing female representation in professional employment positions, as it gives parents equal status to work/care-give as they deem appropriate.

So, yes, giving TDs mat/pat-leave would be more equal. However, it is logically fallacious to presume that the absence of both for both genders is also equal.

K-9

Oddly enough I was just thinking about that earlier, they had to make it compulsory for men to take the leave for it to make any real affect.